Were you aware that the Earth is losing its magnetosphere? Do you have a theory as to why?

SPC Nathan Freeman — Fri, 09 Oct 2015 17:47:05 -0400

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/science/121005/earth-losing-its-magnetic-field-scientists-say

It was previously believed that the magnetosphere was connected to the rotation of the Earth. The earth is still rotating and orbiting at roughly the same speed but the magnetism is halved every 1400 years. This has the gyro theorists scratching their collective heads. Any ideas on how this is possible? I have a theory but I'll wait to see what everyone else has to say.

Response by MSgt Curtis Ellis made Oct 9 at 2015 5:52 PM

MSgt Curtis Ellis — Fri, 09 Oct 2015 17:52:55 -0400

Those darned Mutants...

Response by Sgt Kelli Mays made Oct 9 at 2015 5:55 PM

Sgt Kelli Mays — Fri, 09 Oct 2015 17:55:06 -0400

mmmhhhhh? Maybe they had it all wrong to begin with?

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Oct 9 at 2015 7:06 PM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Fri, 09 Oct 2015 19:06:55 -0400

The earth's Iron Core (solid) and Molten Core (liquid) act as a Geodynamo which create a magnetic effect

Sorry for the wiki link, but its great for a "simple" explanation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_magnetic_field

"The Earth and most of the planets in the Solar System, as well as the Sun and other stars, all generate magnetic fields through the motion of highly conductive fluids. The Earth's field originates in its core. This is a region of iron alloys extending to about 3400 km (the radius of the Earth is 6370 km). It is divided into a solid inner core, with a radius of 1220 km, and a liquid outer core. The motion of the liquid in the outer core is driven by heat flow from the inner core, which is about 6,000 K (5,730 °C; 10,340 °F), to the core-mantle boundary, which is about 3,800 K (3,530 °C; 6,380 °F). The pattern of flow is organized by the rotation of the Earth and the presence of the solid inner core.

The mechanism by which the Earth generates a magnetic field is known as a dynamo.[42] A magnetic field is generated by a feedback loop: current loops generate magnetic fields (Ampère's circuital law); a changing magnetic field generates an electric field (Faraday's law); and the electric and magnetic fields exert a force on the charges that are flowing in currents (the Lorentz force).These effects can be combined in a partial differential equation for the magnetic field called the magnetic induction equation:"

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 9 at 2015 9:44 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 09 Oct 2015 21:44:48 -0400

As Earth's molten interior slowly cools over time, the Geodynamic forces that generate the Van Allen Radiation Belts and the magnetic field slowly lose the frictions that generate electromagnetic forces around the planet.
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS has a good explanation of how dynamic magnetic induction occurs.

Response by SFC Mark Merino made Oct 10 at 2015 12:02 AM

SFC Mark Merino — Sat, 10 Oct 2015 00:02:02 -0400

Nooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!
Wait till some jerk uses this as his defense for committing some crime.

Response by SPC Nathan Freeman made Oct 10 at 2015 4:41 PM

SPC Nathan Freeman — Sat, 10 Oct 2015 16:41:32 -0400

http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080515/full/news.2008.822.html

According to this article, it has officially been determined that fission accounts for more than half of the Earth's heat. Although they still can't account for a significant amount of heat. I believe my theory will be a better explanation but it requires a completely new model for the creation of the Earth. As opposed to their theory of a self starting reactor, I propose that the Earth began as a nuclear reaction. The current model for the creation of planets doesn't account for the magnetism of Mercury or several of the gas giants or their moons. According to the model, two of the gas giants shouldn't exist at all due to their large size and low mass. The gas giants and their moons should be cold and dormant but they aren't. Mercury has low levels of helium and other gases that shouldn't be there because the mass of the planet isn't strong enough to keep such gases from escaping. Coincidentally (or not) these gases happen to be the daughter isotopes of heavy metal fission. Mercury's core is supposed to be too dense to have a liquid core so it shouldn't have a magnetosphere. It makes more sense that Mercury (and EArth) are fission powered which would account for the magnetosphere and also for the rate at which they are losing their magnetic fields. Astrologers will argue against this theory stating that it defies the 4 billion plus year age of the universe. To say that these planets are nuclear fission powered and counting back the strength of the magnetic fields, neither of the planets could be more than 20,000 years old.

The 4.6 billion year age of the universe comes from an assumption concerning radiometric dating of Uranium and similar heavy elements. It is assumed that these isotopes began at 100% uranium and 0% Thorium234/ Helium 4. This assumption alone is far fetched considering the enormous energy it takes to create these elements. As long as there is significant gamma radiation from a nuclear event, there is going to be an elevated decay rate so the very creation of Uranium requires some immediate and substantial gamma radiation and subsequent decay. Fission creates an electromagnetic field which itself has been shown (without the presence of radioactive material) to cause radiation heat/ damage. This was discovered in the use of MRI machines which have no radioactive materials but only electromagnetic waves. Patients with metal in their bodies were complaining weeks and months later that there was a burning sensation where they had metal rods, pins etc in their body. It was later discovered that there was actual burning of flesh in their body at these sites. This could be the cause of further acceleration of radioactive decay not accounted for in normal aging. These two confounding variables seriously call into questions decades old speculations concerning the age of the universe. There are other confounding variables as well but suffice it to say, the age of the universe is probably far younger than the current models taught in school.

The accretion theory runs into problems on every planet and moon in our solar system. So I propose a new theory based on the Big Bang Theory.

The Big Bang Theory was conceived by a Belgian named Georges Lemaitre based on the Biblical Creation week taking into account Einsteins Theory of General Relativity and the Laws of Thermodynamics and Hubble's discovery that the universe is expanding at an ever increasing rate.

Somewhere along the line it got hijacked by the accretion theory now being taught. Accretion requires long periods of time and inexplicable coagulation of materials that can't be explained by known physics on a grand scale.

I believe the Big Bang started with a Higgs Boson event on a massive scale. Previously, it was believed that there must have already been Hydrogen and other light gases present prior to the explosion. With the discovery of the Higgs Boson, that is no longer necessary. There is no explanation for where these gases came from either. The Higgs Boson exists ex nihilo (from nothing) and so it can explain the creation of the first quark. This even happened on a massive scale creating all the matter in the universe at frequencies at or above gamma. If ever there was an event that would create such energy, the Big Bang would be it. This would be the creation of dark matter and energy. This event would be a nuclear event sending super hot blobs of matter of the heaviest metals into an elliptical blast of various sizes. An event this hot would not make lighter gases but these gases would be the byproduct of the fission of the molten magma spinning into space. Some of the smaller blobs would cook faster creating a shell of iron and other lighter elements. Some of these would turn into planets, others into blue stars which would burn out quickly if they are burning to hot to allow iron or nickel to create a shell. As the planets cool, and if they are big enough, they will trap the gases and create atmospheres depending on the mass of the planet. The smaller planets would become terrestrial planets. The larger planets like Saturn might reach critical mass and explode but the inner core would stay stationary and its mass would collect most of the heavier matter while some of the smaller parts, having just been involved in a nuclear explosion would be super hot and collect smaller parts to create moons and rings. The planets with large amounts of heavy elements would instantly have a prestarted nuclear fission process. Other planets with less heavy elements would have no fission or very little and would expend their energy quickly. They may just go cold or may go supernova. The difference between a planet going supernova and a star going supernova is that planets would have a larger ratio of solid matter to gas matter. If you look at nebulae, you might notice that they look like a nuclear explosions in space. We have seen stars go supernova and they leave very little behind in the way of matter and there is nothing left to create a cloud. Planets going supernova would have a lot of matter and it would be messy. Astrologers believe nebulae are the formation of stars and solar systems. I would argue that the opposite is true. They are the waste.

Now what about the bigger blobs? The massive blobs of gamma fire are also shooting out from the ground zero. The explosion would send them spinning out and their gravity would collect smaller gamma fires carrying them farther into space than they might have gone on their own. The Boson Machine that is making all this matter into existence is rotating counter clockwise and thus so are the massive gamma fires. The massive gamma fires look like spinning wheels because of the stars and planets within its gravity field. The centrifugal force of this spinning motion both aids in the increasing speed of the galaxies that these gamma fires will soon become and keeps the matter in its gravitational field from collapsing back into the center of the galaxy. At some point, these gamma fires cool enough that they burst into visible light. By this time, the planets have cooled enough to have a coat of water over the surface if they are so lucky.

Looking at our solar system specifically, probably all of the planets had some level of water. For whatever reason, Mars has a weak magnetic field. When the gamma fire at the center of our galaxy exploded into visible light, it sent a shockwave through the galaxy similar to that of a nuclear explosion here on Earth. Earth would have had a strong magnetosphere at the time and would have deflected most of the radiation away from itself. Mercury was too close to the explosion for its magnetosphere to make a difference. Mars magnetosphere would have been too weak to make a difference and so most of its water was vaporized. Earth would have still experienced significant radiation vaporizing some of the water but its mass prevented it from going too far from the planet so the vaporized water created an atmosphere.

Keep in mind that this is a nuclear chain reaction. The blast of the galaxy would have super heated the other smaller balls of gas and sent small fragments flying along the elliptical making craters wherever planets or moons weren't lucky enough to have magnetospheres strong enough to deflect them. The super-heating of the lesser gamma fires would have created a rapid cooling effect as the temperature correction of the fission process along with the coolness of space brought the temperature down quickly within a couple days and these lesser gamma fires would be to cool and explode into stars.

Our star, the sun, would have a blast radius reaching as far as the Kuiper belt while the vacuum from the explosion would pull all the loose matter from as far away as Mars and Jupiter (thus the asteroid belt between those two planets). The Earth's moon was probably on the very tail end of that vacuum and was captured by the Earths gravity but was prevented from hitting the Earth due to the magnetosphere (a very tricky balance). Again, the magnetosphere was much stronger back then. I think if the calculations were made, we will find that the mass of the moon was just right for this phenomenon. Because this is a nuclear chain reaction, we cannot allow for billions of years. From the time that the galaxies cooled from gamma to visible light to the time of the explosion and creation of the sun would have been no more than 4 days due to the nature of nuclear physics. The cooling off period before that would depend on the total amount of matter in the universe and the mean temperature reached during the gamma phase.

In conclusion, every planet with a magnetosphere has been fission powered since it's creation and are losing magnetism in direct correlation to the mass of the sum of radioactive metal in their respective cores. This theory would be proven wrong if a planet could be found whose magnetic field was strengthening or maintaining its magnetism over the course of decades.

I look forward to your criticism

Are there nuclear reactors at Earth's core? : Nature News

Nature - the world's best science and medicine on your desktop

Response by MAJ Keira Brennan made Oct 11 at 2015 3:26 PM

MAJ Keira Brennan — Sun, 11 Oct 2015 15:26:24 -0400

As a former FA40 space systems officer I find this stuff so fascinating. We monitored space weather constantly because space weather has EVERYTHING to do with the magnetosphere. There’s a process going on in the magnetosphere without a doubt. But I don’t believe we are “losing” anything though. Secular variation, including the current inclination is what is going on. I’ll admit I understand it conceptually but not the math. The magnetic fields flex East and West over time. The poles will eventually flip. I think there was a long-term flip at 800K year ago and a short-term flip about 40K years ago and the recent Ice Age. I did read that there were times of geological instability and the Earth’s magnetic field deviated 4-6% in a day. There’s an excellent geological record that all shows that we Earthling still haven’t figured it out.
There’s a constellation of satellites called THEMIS that are doing Earth and Moon observations of our respective magnetic fields. All doing VERY GOOD WORK!!!
http://themis.ssl.berkeley.edu/orbits.shtml

THEMIS

THEMIS Time History of Events and Macroscale Interactions During Substorms

Response by SGT John Rauch made Oct 12 at 2015 8:01 AM

SGT John Rauch — Mon, 12 Oct 2015 08:01:56 -0400

heres one from way out in left field. I think the atmosphere has been deteriorating since the flood of Noah.

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made Oct 13 at 2015 2:30 PM

SFC Michael Hasbun — Tue, 13 Oct 2015 14:30:41 -0400

I have a theory...

Response by TSgt Kenneth Ellis made Nov 2 at 2015 5:56 PM

TSgt Kenneth Ellis — Mon, 02 Nov 2015 17:56:47 -0500

https://www.facebook.com/DSouzaDinesh/videos/ [login to see] 72536/

Response by SPC George Rudenko made Nov 3 at 2015 10:56 PM

SPC George Rudenko — Tue, 03 Nov 2015 22:56:56 -0500

I don;t know about "losing it". Its known that periodically the poles flip. As long as we have that giant chunk of iron, surrounded but a river of molten iron etc. I think we'll be ok.

Response by SPC David S. made Nov 4 at 2015 1:52 PM

SPC David S. — Wed, 04 Nov 2015 13:52:10 -0500

More than likely the poles are getting ready for a switch. Swam data suggest that magnetic north is moving toward Siberia. That fact of a decay was know but new research shows it at a much higher rate - some 5 percent per decade. This pole flipping takes hundreds if not thousands of years.

Response by PO2 Peter Klein made Nov 4 at 2015 6:33 PM

PO2 Peter Klein — Wed, 04 Nov 2015 18:33:54 -0500

The GOP will blame (pick one or more): Democrats, LGBT, atheists, blacks, browns, immigrants, player to be named at a later date.

Response by CW3 Jim Norris made Nov 10 at 2015 1:00 PM

CW3 Jim Norris — Tue, 10 Nov 2015 13:00:16 -0500

Could be minute cooling of the earths core.